Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 U.S. 15 - Bond v. Hume

Bond v. Hume’s Empirical Analysis

243 U.S. 15 · 1917

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
36
cited 36 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
February 1989
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1989 · most notably United States v. Pink (1942), Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co. (1935)

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 10 states

35019171920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Bank of Augusta v. Earle · Clews v. Jamieson · Irwin v. Williar · Bibb v. Allen

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is certain that these principles [of comity] which govern as between countries foreign to each other apply with greater force to the relation of the several states to each other, since the obligations of the Constitution which bind them all in a common orbit of national unity impose of necessity restrictions which otherwise would not obtain, and exact a greater degree of respect for each other than otherwise by the principles of comity would be expected.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where a contract between a citizen of the state of New York and a citizen of the state of Texas is entered into, made, and executed in the state of New York, for the sale of cotton for future delivery upon the New York Cotton Exchange, pursuant to the rules, regulations, customs, and usages of said Exchange, and the same is a valid exigible contract in the state of New York, does the statute of the state of Texas (known as the ‘Bucket Shop Law’) passed by the Thirtieth Legislature of the state of Texas in 1907, the same being incorporated in the Revised Criminal Statutes of Texas (1911) as cnapter 3, pages 141, 142, or any public policy therein declared, prevent a District Court of the United States, sitting in Texas, wherein a suit is brought to recover for breach of said contract from granting such relief as otherwise, but for such statute, the parties would be entitled to have and receive?””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “And of course we must not be understood as deciding whether the mere existence of a state statute punishing one who in bad faith, and because of such bad faith, had made an agreement to deliver in a contract of sale which would be otherwise valid, could become the basis of a public policy preventing the enforcement in Texas of contracts for sale and delivery made in another State which were there valid although one of the parties might have made the agreement to deliver in bád faith.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.